Talk:Near-close near-front unrounded vowel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Error[edit]

Its vowel height is near-open, which means the tongue is positioned similarly to a close vowel, but slightly less constricted.

Shouldn't that be... near-closed? I'm not sure.

Yep! Thanks for catching that. kwami 11:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the vowel in German bitte is the same as the one in Dutch ik/ Engish bit. It is closer to a short /i/. af:Gebruiker:Jcwf

I agree. I think the German sample should be removed, as it should actually read [ˈbitə]. Radioflux 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Oxford's got the near-close vowel for that word. I do believe that that's the transcription for Standard German although I would be surprised if other dialects weren't different. AEuSoes1 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
German /ɪ/ may be close front [i], near-close front [ɪ̟], near-close near-front [ɪ] or close-mid near-front [ɘ̟]. It varies from speaker to speaker, the last two values are the most common (I think) in the north, while the first two are more common in the south. I also noticed that northern speakers that use more palatal /ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/ are more likely to use a near-close near-front-vowel, while those who use laminal retroflex [ʂ ʐ ʈ͡ʂ ɖ͡ʐ] are more likely to use a close-mid near-front vowel [ɘ̟]. --Helloworlditsme (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Example[edit]

Isn't it an allophone? This kind of defeats the purpose of the example because Russian speakers might think it's equivalent to [e]. I went ahead and deleted the Russian example and included a Ukrainian one to compensate. -Iopq 15:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think it's a good example, then find one where /i/ becomes [ɪ] instead of /e/. These examples are all narrow transcription and so allophones are acceptable. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the arguments about allophones. We include the allophones in English in many pages, so keep the damn thing. BirdValiant 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with using allophones is that native speakers often can't tell them apart. FilipeS 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's on them to learn more about phonetics. Being a native speaker has little to do with knowing how to pronounce your language... especially if it has a broken (i.e. not having much in common with the contemporary pronunciation) orthography, such as English. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 09:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you meant to say is that they're not aware of all the different allophones in their speech. Obviously, native speakers know how to pronounce their own language. Also, I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to make with orthography; I'm not aware of any orthography that represents allophones. 213.7.56.181 (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that most native speakers can't teach the pronunciation of their native language without some training. By knowing I meant knowing how to explain. It's obvious that they know how to physically produce correct sounds. My point with orthography wasn't allophones, but phonemes. I've heard countless times that English has 5 or 6 vowels - A E I O U Y. Obviously, these are letters, not vowels. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 07:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand English[edit]

Don't Kiwis use [ɪ] in the first syllable of seven? Thegryseone (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French error[edit]

Hello, I am french. And since when petite is pronounced like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.180.173 (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but that's how it's pronounced in parts of Quebec. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 11:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English[edit]

The article says most dialects have a near-close near-front vowel in bit. I don't think that's true. The vowel is usually lower and more centralized. Is there a source for the statement in the article? — Eru·tuon 17:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Near-front" doesn't have a defined centralization - it's somewhere between front and central. It may be close-mid for some speakers, I don't know, but you seem to be essentially saying that the usual pronunciation of English /ɪ/ is [ɘ] which, of course, is not true. It may be between [e] and [ɘ], but definitely not [ɘ]. I've heard a near-close central vowel used idiolectally in American English; this seems to be connected to people whose /ʃ, ʒ/ have more of a laminal retroflex quality (save, of course, for things like NCVS etc.)
Changed to "many dialects". Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was probably wrong on the centrality, because [ɘ] on this site doesn't sound right. What irks me is "near-close", because it implies the vowel is closer than close-mid, and thus between [i] and [e] (but near-front rather than front). Is that what near-close is supposed to mean? I think such a vowel quality would only occur in old-fashioned RP, and it sounds kind of funny (or Australian).
I'm not comfortable with "many dialects", because there are no sources, and it might just be an assumption based on the default symbol used to represent the vowel in phonemic transcriptions. I once simply assumed it was accurate for my pronunciation, but when I finally analyzed my own speech, I discovered my kit vowel is actually mid (not even close-mid!), and perhaps near-front. Best not to assume.
If "many dialects" have the near-close near-front vowel, then which dialects are included in "many", and which aren't? California, Canadian, Scottish, and New Zealand English are some of the ones that partly or completely don't have this vowel. That's a fair number of exceptions. If the number of dialects with the vowel is fewer, then it would be better simply to list them with sources. — Eru·tuon 22:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Damn man, you're hard to please. Give me a day or two, you'll get your sources. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Erutuon: Ok, I'm discovering more and more sources - see User:Mr KEBAB/Near-close near-front unrounded vowel, which I'll probably move here in a couple of days. Tomorrow, that list will probably be twice as long. If you want to suggest something, use the special section I've just created. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect sound file[edit]

The recording in the sound file is much too close to Close-mid front unrounded vowel. --Espoo (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Pt.GM (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree (see my comment concerning GA "KIT" vowel). Bladesinger46n2 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schwi?[edit]

Over at vowel reduction, this is referred to as a 'schwi', but with no citation. Where on the spectrum of established terminology to cheesy in-joke would this usage fall? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American English KIT vowel[edit]

According to the sound example provided for this vowel (as well as others I have heard), why is the GA "KIT" vowel transcribed as [ɪ] in virtually everything that offers an IPA transcription, including this site? This is definitely not the KIT vowel I hear in my area and on television/radio/etc. According to the sound sample provided on Wikipedia, this vowel sounds almost identical to [ɘ]. Regardless, I think this vowel is certainly a central vowel in the mid to mid/high range. Bladesinger46n2 (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Near-close_near-front_unrounded_vowel&oldid=1203162909"